Rage against the machine

Several months ago I read an article by John Stossel about transportation and he mentioned that he feels that stoplights are not necessary and that perhaps we can be safer without them. I found the idea interesting at the time but had never really thought about it. After a few months and reading some more reasons why we might not need them I have decided that they are unnecessary.
First, other than google, there is no machine that is really smarter than humans. The stoplight has no idea if I am sitting in front of a red light and no one else is there. Even if they have sensors, you will still need to come to a stop and wait for the lights to change. It is inconvenient and inefficient.
Second, green lights give a false sense of security. When you see a green light, you speed up and just think "go." I think people are less likely to speed through an intersection if it doesn't have a stoplight because we would be more afraid. That fear will make us safer because we will be looking cautiously as we cross an intersection and not just relying on others to obey traffic signals. When we pass through an intersection, are we more concentrated on what color a light is or if it is safe to pass? If there is no stoplight, we will pay more attention to traffic and road conditions.
Third, stoplights increase pollution. In a few places they have taken out stoplights and traffic has improved. Without all of the congestion pollution will be decreased.
It seems to me that we are smart enough to live without traffic lights. I can tell if it is safe for me to go with or without a stoplight. I say it is time for us to fight back against the machines and get rid of stoplights.

Panopiticism

I've been reading Foucault lately about Bentham's panopticon while at the same time taking a poetry class. Here is my combination of the two. Enjoy.

We’re watching you

We’re watching you

With cameras

On the streets

At the supermarket

In the airport

It is for your protection

We watch everything you do

to save you

From the murderers

From the terrorists

From the people that run red lights

They’re all dangerous

They must be stopped

We don’t have cameras in the bathroom

Yet

That is why so many crimes take place there

Maybe next year

Maybe tomorrow

We’ll put cameras there

It’s for your protection

We might see you naked

Or on the pot

But its constitutional.

No violation of the fourth amendment

Kind of like the body scanners

You choose to go to the bathroom

Kind of like how you choose to fly

And be seen naked by TSA agents

Or molested.

You could not go number one

And not be seen naked

You will be safe

when you go to the bathroom

because we will have cameras there

and we will be watching

next time you go number two

we’ll know.

And we’ll be watching

Only to protect you.

Beck/Dalton Game Score

I recently read an article in NBC that claimed that Tim Lincecum in his recent 2 hit shutout of the Braves was more dominant than Roy Halladay in his no hitter the other week. They based their information on what is called the Bill James Game Score. I don't like the stat and I will explain why after I give a brief explanation of what exactly it entails. First, you start out with 50 points. You add 1 point for each out, 2 points for each inning after 4, and 1 point for each strikeout. After that, you subtract 2 points for each hit, 4 points for each earned run, 2 points for each unearned run, and 1 point for each walk. Once all the math is completed you now have a measurement of how dominant a starting pitcher was.
I do not like this stat for a few reasons. First, I feel it overvalues the strikeout, especially when compared to a groundout. It is much more economical and something that is highly valued in a pitcher and I feel greatly adds to his dominance on any given night. My major complaint is that it doesn't increase the value for not allowing any hits. I feel that we should give credit if a pitcher pitches a complete-game no hitter and even more for a perfect game. To do so I have created (With the help of David Dalton) the Beck/Dalton Game Score. We have modified Bill James' work by changing a few numbers here and there to something that we view more accurately reflects pitching excellence. Without any further ado, here is what will soon become the best way to measure a pitcher's performance:
Start with 50 points
+2 for every inning after 6
+ 2 for groundouts
+2 for K
+1 for every avg. pitches per inning under 13
+20 Perfect Game
+10 No Hitter
-4 ER
-6 Every run after 3
-1 unearned runs
- 2 for every H
-1 for every BB
-1 for every pitch per inning over 13
Now for my explanation. We feel like this accurately reflects what makes a great pitching performance. First, we feel like that this recognizes a pitcher that is able to throw a great game in fewer pitches. If we look at Edwin Jackson's no hitter, he threw 149 pitches and walked 8 people. Our Game Score would take away points not only for walks but for the high pitch count. Even though Jackson threw a no hitter, he still scores lower than Lincecum and rightfully so because his pitch count was higher. We feel this is fair and greater emphasizes efficient pitching. Second, it emphasizes throwing a no hitter or perfect game. Third, it de-emphasizes strikeouts, which look cool but are not always the most efficient out. It is a great tool for a closer or when runners are on base but we feel that they ground out is also very important and our Game Score reflects that. One of the downfalls with our metric though is that we are unable to account for fly outs vs. pop outs and we would include them in our Game Score but they don't show up in our box scores. Once they do, we will add points to a pitcher's score as well for that.
Overall, we think that our Game Score is much more effective than that of Bill James because of these changes.

Why I hate Columbus day and other thoughts

Hating Columbus Day is not a big deal; most people do nowadays so I know that I am not alone but my reasons are most likely completely different than those of most people. A lot of people complain because Columbus was involved in the slave trade, he aided in the destruction of the American Indians, and perhaps, many other reasons. I complain because there is no mail today. I have been waiting for my collection of Seinfeld's complete series for nearly a month now and it is in Provo/Orem but because of Columbus, I won't see it until tomorrow. Yes. I am very upset. The Post Office takes so many days off; why can't we just let them deliver my package to me today? I think it would solve a lot of the world's problems if I had the complete series of Seinfeld today.

Is McDonald's really the most evil corporation that is trying to kill us all? I don't think so; they are just trying to make a buck like I am so I can't really blame them. I have been thinking a lot about McDonald's lately because I noticed that San Francisco is trying to ban Happy Meal toys and when I commented on it, a colleague said that it was incentivizing killing yourself (not an exact quote). I, obviously, completely disagree. While a toy will attract more young children to the restaurant, it offers another option to sitting and watching TV or playing video games. In reality, I think McDonald's is saving the children by offering Happy Meal toys. They might become more active because they are playing with their Strawberry Shortcake toy, lose weight, and not die. Thank you McDonald's. I am truly lovin' it.

I posted about this on Facebook earlier but I feel it is important enough to reiterate. It has been happening for a long time now but Republicans are always complaining because Obama is going to Martha's Vineyard or Michelle is going to Spain or he is just playing so much golf. When he doesn't go on vacation, we hear he is spending too much money, ugh, I hate ObamaCare and even more. It would appear that there is nothing the man could do right. I think that if he were to balance the budget, lower taxes, and shrink the government, they would still complain. I, personally, would rather have him play golf than spend a trillion dollars.

Mario Vargas Llosa is one of my favorite authors and he just recently won the Nobel Prize for Literature. David, mi amigo, mentioned an interesting theory today: he feels that they wanted to choose a non-European, right-of-center author for the winner to show that they are not Eurocentric or leftist, but by so doing, they only further cement this. I don't know if this is right but Vargas Llosa deserves the award. Now I only really have one complaint left and that is that they should give Carlos Fuentes the award. He is now, in my mind, the most deserving candidate.

I have no more thoughts. Until next time.

Your hair

my wife is lucky because sometimes i write poems about here. today i woke up at 5 am and wrote this. what a lucky lady.

Your hair

I like the way you wear
That beautiful head of hair.
Even if you were mauled by a bear
You would still have the most beautiful hair.

I am an amazing poet. You're welcome Rianne. Hope you loved it.

swimming for ms

most of you know that in january 2009 rianne was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis. before that she would be tired all of the time and life was not easy and while it hasn't gotten easier we have found ways to alleviate several problems that come with ms. nothing has come easy and we work hard for all of the happiness that we have. our friends and especially our families have been a wonderful support system as we have gone through these great challenges and we will always be grateful. since rianne has been diagnosed, we have dedicated a part of our lives to fight against ms and have joined the thousands of people who began this fight well before us. every year there is a walk ms that has been a great experience to help fund the national multiple sclerosis society. i recently received an email about swimming for ms; i have always loved swimming and have decided to join the cause. i am writing this post for a few reasons. first, i want to thank everyone that has been a great support for us. we couldn't do it without you. second, my main goal is to bring an awareness to ms and my swimming will hopefully do that but i also would like to raise money to find a cure for ms. if you want to help and you can afford to donate, visit this site. if you don't feel like you can afford to donate, then come swim with me. my plan is to be at the rb swimming pool m-f at 6.45 am to swim for half an hour before classes. anyone who comes to swim with me or donates will be given one of those cool, hip orange rubber bracelets to so that they can also raise awareness in a cool, hip way. hope you can join me in the fight so that together we can find a cure!!

To legalize or not to legalize

I recently changed my residence, abandoning Colorado (I miss you) for sunny California. When I registered to vote and had to choose the party with whom I affiliate, I also abandoned the GOP (good riddance) for the Libertarian Party. In the past 3-4 years my opinion of all things Republican has changed; at one time they could do no wrong, but now they very frequently do not end up on what I view to be the right side of the issue (with, of course, notable exceptions such as Ron Paul, Jim DeMint, and Paul Ryan). I wish that I could trust them when they say that they will be fiscally aware once they resume power, but I have not forgotten that the Bush administration spent the most money ever until the current one and now we disagree on other issues such as immigration or the NYC mosque.
So this year I will vote in California. I am excited to vote on the gamut of propositions but most notably for Prop 19. This is the bill that will legalize marijuana in the state of California. After having several conversations with myself and others, I am ready to announce to the world how I will vote with a rational explanation using my impeccable logic. Get ready world. For the 2010 election in the state of California, with regards to Prop 19, I am taking my talents to Yes. I have come up with three main reasons why I feel this way.
Police spend a lot of time fighting drugs. As the use of drugs has increased, law enforcement has been forced to spend more time combating drug use and not as much time fighting crimes that have a victim.
Using drugs is for the most part a victimless crime. When someone smokes a joint in his basement, he isn’t injuring anyone but himself and it is not the job of the government to protect me from me. Ludwig von Mises wrote “(O)nce the principle is admitted that it is the duty of the government to protect the individual against his own foolishness ... (w)hy not prevent him from reading bad books and bad plays ... ? The mischief done by bad ideologies is more pernicious ... than that done by narcotic drugs.” They shouldn’t tell people what to read or eat even though that could be dangerous to their health and drugs are no different.
Now, dear reader, you might be saying that drugs do have victims. Families are destroyed and the lives of children are ruined because their parents are addicted to drugs. I have witnessed this firsthand when I worked at a juvenile detention center. Many of the kids were ignored by their parents or took drugs with their parents and it led to other crimes that were far worse than drugs. For you, my dear reader, I will provide what I find my most convincing argument. It will surprise no one to know that I am a nerd, especially when it comes to economics. I love it. I have analyzed for myself through a cost/benefit analysis speeding and a bunch of other issues. Drugs are no different. Let’s begin with my analysis.
What are the costs of legalizing drugs? Some lives are ruined through drug abuse (not use just abuse). That is a horrible thing and I don’t want to make this seem trivial. Someone might get behind the wheel and drive and could seriously injure another person. If drugs are legal, driving while under the influence of them should and would still be illegal but it could still happen so I include this as a cost associated with legalization.
What about the benefits? Income from drugs can now be taxed adding much needed revenue to the government, albeit revenue that they wouldn’t need if they just spent money wisely but that is another topic. Billions of dollars would be saved because there would be no need to send that money to Mexico as aid to fight the drug cartels or to spend it to find local drug dealers. Jeffrey Miron, a economics professor at Harvard, has estimated that between what we will get from taxes and save will be over $30 billion. That is a lot of money. Another benefit is that the drug cartels will lose power. If you look at the famous, prohibition-era criminals, you will notice a commonality amongst nearly all of them: bootlegging. Dillinger, Capone, and others were all bootleggers and the mafias that made money through the practice lost power once alcohol was legalized. The same will most likely happen with cartels and gangs who are also financed through dealing drugs.
To summarize my analysis, by legalizing drugs thousands more people will keep their lives than lose them and billions of dollars will be saved or earned legally and lastly, drug cartels will lose power and money. For me, it is a win for legalization. The benefits far outweigh the costs.
Now a bonus reason for everyone but specifically tailored to Mormons like me. Richard Nixon started the war on drugs in the 70s and it has lasted now nearly 40 years with no end in sight. I agree that drugs are horrible and I would never take any of them but there is a more effective way to fight drugs. In The Book of Mormon we read “And now, as the preaching of the word had a great tendency to lead the people to do that which was just—yea, it had had more powerful effect upon the minds of the people than the sword, or anything else, which had happened unto them—therefore Alma thought it was expedient that they should try the virtue of the word of God.” If the use and abuse of drugs are to end, we must preach the word of God and not try and end it with “the sword, or anything else” which has heretofore been inadequate.
Hopefully, you now understand why I feel it should be legalized. I also like the idea of California legalizing it because it will be a social experiment in a smaller setting, and if it works, other states are then able to copy it. It is the way that the union is supposed to be. We will see what happens.